Should we punish the bear when it catches a salmon? The hawk when it snatches a lizard? Certainly this article is well done and has provoked many thoughts, but the bit on the NAP applying to animals could use more explaining. If there was no inter-sentient-species aggression, wouldn't the food chain have capped off at snails and minnows? I understand that vegan diets could be legitimate for the world population, and I find no need to argue the "what about agressing plants" type position because I find that most definitely ridiculous, but where is the line drawn for things like insects? If you could point toward some literature on the subject, it would be greatly appreciated.
RE: Vegan Anarchy (Part II) The Non-Aggression Principle applied to animals
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Vegan Anarchy (Part II) The Non-Aggression Principle applied to animals
The responsibility of choosing right action over wrong action doesn't lie at the victim but at the oppressor. We have a higher level of consciousness compared to an animal which means that the NAP is in our hands, not the animal. Let's say we have a brain damaged patient that does not understand right and wrong, is it suddenly ok for us that do understand the NAP to treat the brain damaged patient violently just because he/she doesn't understand right and wrong? No, the moral culpability always lies in the hands of the one that commits the action that also inhibits the level of consciousness necessary to understand right and wrong.
One could then ask "well if my moral compass of right and wrong is false, is I exempted then?" No you are not, like I said, the moral culpability lies in the hands of the one that commits the action that also inhibits the level of consciousness necessary to understand right and wrong which pretty much every single human being is. Well except those that got some serious brain damage or something. :D
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@johnblaid Very well put!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@tommyboyle I should have clarified in the article; I was referring to the NAP in regard to humans (beings of conscience) and animals. The animals do not operate on the same level of consciousness as us; they are incapable of intellectualizing the NAP because they are driven by instinct and survival. A bear does not eat a fish for pleasure or for greed, it does so for survival. Same with the Hawk, Lion, and other predators. We, as beings of an evolved intellectual capacity, have the free will every time we step into a supermarket to purchase a product that does not involve the suffering of animals. We do not need to eat meat to survive, however, we still choose to do so for selfish reasons - taste, smell, pleasure. I'd highly recommend the documentary Earthlings, which you can find on YouTube, to shed some more light on the way we treat animals for our own pleasure.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit